I was sorting through a huge stack of my old army pictures, and it suddenly hit me...What happened to that smartass kid with the smoke hanging out of the shit-eating grin he had plastered on his face?
Jesus, I can remember those days only in a hazy, dreamlike manner. I believed different things, then. I thought the world could be saved, I mean, shit...The problems are obvious, the solutions are common sense, right? All you had to do was organize things a bit, and there's nothing we, as a species, can't do.
Obviously, I was wrong.
It seems the one thing we can't do is organize and look at root causes of failure. People have become so attached to non-functional, political points of view that they can't even look at a problem anymore, because that would be a betrayal of the ideals they hold. The ideals that say "there's nothing wrong", or "It's the other side's fault", or "What the hell is on the tube tonight?".
This is, of course, deliberate. It's easier to control people if you give them some things to hate, and some things to fear...So, in the 60s, we went to the moon for all the wrong reasons, and once we got there ahead of the Soviets, we just stopped. No moon base. No Mars. No anything, other than a space-going pickup truck that makes sure that satellites are in place to allow people in Botswana to watch re-runs of Lost.
As a result, we are exactly as well equipped to stop a killer asteroid as the dinosaurs were. Hell, we can't even see the near-misses coming, most of the time, because we don't have enough platforms.
But that asteroid would probably be doing us a favor. The most serious threat we face also happens to be about the most dismal fate we could possibly fear...We're going to stack humans on top of humans until we drown in our own shit. We're already fighting over resources, and that trend will accelerate. The population stands at over 7 billion now, and 200 more people are born than die every minute.
If we don't get a handle on our population, nothing else matters.
The punch line to all of this, the really grotesque part, is that the more crowded mammals become, the less rational they become as a group. We studied this in rats in the 1950s, and we're observing it in humans today. The more we fight over resources, the more resources get used or destroyed in place, by the very act of fighting...So the worsening of the problem makes the problem less and less likely to be solved.
So, when the last few people with any motivation other than catching rats or other people for food get together to carve our epitaph in the side of a mountain, for the benefit of whatever alien archeologists come along, the epitaph will be remarkably easy:
"We couldn't stop breeding."
The point of all of this is fairly simple. There's only one meme worth repeating right now, and that is "Zero Population Growth". Each adult should do no more breeding than is necessary to replace themselves. In fact, it would be better if there were only one child per two adults.
I don't see this as being very likely to succeed, of course. It flies in the face of most religions and most cultures, particularly the poorer cultures who have no means to receive the message in the first place.
But when we're all gagging on our own sewage, I'll be gurgling "I TOLD YOU SO!" on my way under.
Stupid monkeys.
Or Kill Me.
:x It's a prophecy in the same style the Greek tragedies. It's bound to come true, and people will most likely try to prevent it in a way that will only hasten it along (i.e. consuming more resources to try and fight each other for control of the remaining resources).
Damn you, Malthus.
Quote from: Cainad on February 14, 2011, 05:47:59 PM
:x It's a prophecy in the same style the Greek tragedies. It's bound to come true, and people will most likely try to prevent it in a way that will only hasten it along (i.e. consuming more resources to try and fight each other for control of the remaining resources).
Damn you, Malthus.
Malthus didn't do this shit. WE did this shit. He just pointed out the natural progression of things. He was mistaken only in the amount of time it would take, because he didn't take into account new technology.
And new technology might still bail us out...Which means we'll have MORE people.
Eventually, we'll drop the ball. We have to win every time, and the universe only has to win once.
Roger's 1st Law of Ecology:
Feeding people doesn't stop a famine.There's a pretty cold equation in there.
Who's driving the asteroid?
In 2004, NASA scientists announced that there was a chance that Apophis, an asteroid larger than two football fields, could smash into Earth in 2029. A few additional observations and some number-crunching later, astronomers noted that the chance of the planet-killer hitting Earth in 2029 was nearly zilch.
Now, reports out of Russia say that scientists there estimate Apophis will collide with Earth on April 13, 2036. These reports conflict on the probability of such a doomsday event, but the question remains: How scared should we be?
"Technically, they're correct, there is a chance in 2036 [that Apophis will hit Earth]," said Donald Yeomans, head of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office. However, that chance is just 1-in-250,000, Yeomans said.
The Russian scientists are basing their predictions of a collision on the chance that the 900-foot-long (270 meters) Apophis will travel through what's called a gravitational keyhole as it passes by Earth in 2029. The gravitational keyhole they mention is a precise region in space, only slightly larger than the asteroid itself, in which the effect of Earth's gravity is such that it could tweak Apophis' path.
"The situation is that in 2029, April 13, [Apophis] flies very close to the Earth, within five Earth radii, so that will be quite an event, but we've already ruled out the possibility of it hitting at that time," Yeomans told Life's Little Mysteries. "On the other hand, if it goes through what we call a keyhole during that close Earth approach ... then it will indeed be perturbed just right so that it will come back and smack Earth on April 13, 2036," Yeomans said.
The chances of the asteroid going through the keyhole, which is tiny compared to the asteroid, are "minuscule," Yeomans added.
The more likely scenario is this: Apophis will make a fairly close approach to Earth in late 2012 and early 2013, and will be extensively observed with ground-based optical telescopes and radar systems. If it seems to be heading on a destructive path, NASA will devise the scheme and machinery necessary to change the asteroid's orbit, decreasing the probability of a collision in 2036 to zero, Yeomans said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20030674-501465.html
We have neither the means nor even the technology to change its orbit. We don't even have a spacecraft that can reach the moon anymore, let alone get far enough out to deflect an asteroid.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 05:58:05 PM
We have neither the means nor even the technology to change its orbit. We don't even have a spacecraft that can reach the moon anymore, let alone get far enough out to deflect an asteroid.
So there
is hope! :)
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 06:00:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 05:58:05 PM
We have neither the means nor even the technology to change its orbit. We don't even have a spacecraft that can reach the moon anymore, let alone get far enough out to deflect an asteroid.
So there is hope! :)
No, some wiseass will build a big fucking laser, and heat up the leading edge of the asteroid, slowing it down so that it drops into a lower orbit around the sun.
We'll all cheer, and go back to mass producing people.
The problem, of course, being that, really, who's thinking about 2036? Who (with money) cares NOW about something that MIGHT happen in 25 years?
There's more money in selling whatever sorry excuse for asteroid fallout shelters to whatever idiot will buy them than there is in solving the problem, anyway.
Point entirely obscured by an incidental I shouldn't have included.
Carry on.
TGRR,
Witnessing his second law of ecology being proved before his very eyes.
I saw this in a movie once. Bruce Willis dies in the end.
People can't look at the population issue. :lulz:
GO, LEMMINGS, GO!
There's such a massive cultural roadblock to this, too. There are many places around the world where having loads of children that live to adulthood is still considered something to aspire to. People are much more likely to cling to "traditional" ideals than to ones that make any kind of mathematical sense.
And then there's the issue that faces America now with the Baby Boomers, and Japan is feeling it even more strongly: no one wants to be the generation that gets stuck supporting a big population of elderly and retired.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:15:40 PM
People can't look at the population issue. :lulz:
GO, LEMMINGS, GO!
Same answer to that issue as to the meteor.
By the time that turd hits the rotating blades, everybody who now has the resources to push the solution to the issue will be dead. They don't care... and more people means more people to whom they can sell worthless crap.
Quote from: Khara on February 04, 2011, 07:16:33 PM
The problem, as I see it, is this. There is only so much land on this earth. As well, only so much of it is open land that can be farmed. This is not something that is open for negotiation, it just is.
We can only add so many hormones and other chemical boosts to the seeds we plant and the animals we raise for food.
At some point, either a global law of population control is going to have to be put in place or they are going to have to invent those food replicator things. As I don't see food replicators being a prime goal, people are going to have to stop popping out kids.
We can't make more land and no matter how well you farm it, everything has a limit of production.
My comment from a different thread, but I still think the same here. However, I will take it a step further, one child per female. If you say per couple then you are going to have to decide how to deal with those who are married 4 or 5 times. What then? That is 5 different couples and 5 different kids.....
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:20:06 PM
By the time that turd hits the rotating blades, everybody who now has the resources to push the solution to the issue will be dead.
This is incorrect. Population growth is logarithmic, and we're on the steep part of the curve.
If something doesn't give in less than 20 years, everything goes.
But you are correct in the only sense that actually matters...Nobody with the means to accomplish anything will even LOOK at the problem, because it's a HUGE fucking problem that isn't going to bite us THIS WEEK.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:15:40 PM
People can't look at the population issue. :lulz:
GO, LEMMINGS, GO!
I am looking at it. I just know the human race isn't going to do one damn thing about it.
Quote from: Cainad on February 14, 2011, 06:16:44 PM
There's such a massive cultural roadblock to this, too. There are many places around the world where having loads of children that live to adulthood is still considered something to aspire to. People are much more likely to cling to "traditional" ideals than to ones that make any kind of mathematical sense.
And then there's the issue that faces America now with the Baby Boomers, and Japan is feeling it even more strongly: no one wants to be the generation that gets stuck supporting a big population of elderly and retired.
There's only two real solutions, both of which are monstrous.
Either we figure out a way to mass-sterilize a huge chunk of the population, or we let things take their course.
One way is utterly reprehensible, and the other way leads to The End.
That's one reason people can't even make themselves look at this issue. Every way you look at it, you're fucked...But in this case as in many others, not making a decision is itself a decision.
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 06:23:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 04, 2011, 07:16:33 PM
The problem, as I see it, is this. There is only so much land on this earth. As well, only so much of it is open land that can be farmed. This is not something that is open for negotiation, it just is.
We can only add so many hormones and other chemical boosts to the seeds we plant and the animals we raise for food.
At some point, either a global law of population control is going to have to be put in place or they are going to have to invent those food replicator things. As I don't see food replicators being a prime goal, people are going to have to stop popping out kids.
We can't make more land and no matter how well you farm it, everything has a limit of production.
My comment from a different thread, but I still think the same here. However, I will take it a step further, one child per female. If you say per couple then you are going to have to decide how to deal with those who are married 4 or 5 times. What then? That is 5 different couples and 5 different kids.....
A food replicator would be the final nail in the coffin. Overpopulation is not just an issue of food.
What CAN be done? Tell people to stop fucking? Yeah, THAT's gonna work.
The problem is global, so any solution would have to be global. If we decide America can slow down on the production of Americans, we'll have to deal with the fact that other countries will pick up the slack, and will do so just for the purpose of growing their armies bigger than the American army. Substitute any country, here.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:34:38 PM
What CAN be done? Tell people to stop fucking? Yeah, THAT's gonna work.
The problem is global, so any solution would have to be global. If we decide America can slow down on the production of Americans, we'll have to deal with the fact that other countries will pick up the slack, and will do so just for the purpose of growing their armies bigger than the American army. Substitute any country, here.
There are ways. Problem is, they're all fucking horrible.
Question: Is societal/species survival a goal that justifies horrible sneaky shit that would make Stalin puke?
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:34:38 PM
What CAN be done? Tell people to stop fucking? Yeah, THAT's gonna work.
The problem is global, so any solution would have to be global. If we decide America can slow down on the production of Americans, we'll have to deal with the fact that other countries will pick up the slack, and will do so just for the purpose of growing their armies bigger than the American army. Substitute any country, here.
Fucking isn't the problem, breeding is.
So on top of everything else, you'll have to deal with a prisoner's dilemma.
Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation. Don't feed the fucking poor, don't give them shots to save their lives...let nature do it's work.
As for reproduction...that's when eugenics come in, and people get all twitchy about those things.
The Black Death in Europe was a GOOD THING. They were running out of food anyway. They also had the start of a mini ice age at the same time. The Earth knows what's up. Stay the fuck out of it's business.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 06:36:58 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 06:34:38 PM
What CAN be done? Tell people to stop fucking? Yeah, THAT's gonna work.
The problem is global, so any solution would have to be global. If we decide America can slow down on the production of Americans, we'll have to deal with the fact that other countries will pick up the slack, and will do so just for the purpose of growing their armies bigger than the American army. Substitute any country, here.
Fucking isn't the problem, breeding is.
Well, yes. Having managed the act for years without adding to the problem, true. However, most people are (apparently) too bloody stupid to manage the one without the other.
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 14, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation.
Hasn't worked so far. Central Africa is RIDDLED with HIV/AIDS, famine, AND warfare...and their population is mushrooming.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 06:23:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 04, 2011, 07:16:33 PM
The problem, as I see it, is this. There is only so much land on this earth. As well, only so much of it is open land that can be farmed. This is not something that is open for negotiation, it just is.
We can only add so many hormones and other chemical boosts to the seeds we plant and the animals we raise for food.
At some point, either a global law of population control is going to have to be put in place or they are going to have to invent those food replicator things. As I don't see food replicators being a prime goal, people are going to have to stop popping out kids.
We can't make more land and no matter how well you farm it, everything has a limit of production.
My comment from a different thread, but I still think the same here. However, I will take it a step further, one child per female. If you say per couple then you are going to have to decide how to deal with those who are married 4 or 5 times. What then? That is 5 different couples and 5 different kids.....
A food replicator would be the final nail in the coffin. Overpopulation is not just an issue of food.
That was part of my response in a different thread about food shortages. I agree it is not just an issue of food. I fully believe we will have to limit the number of children sooner than later. I also think it should be per female and once said child is born then sterilization should be automatic.
Otherwise this planet is fucked!
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 06:41:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 06:23:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 04, 2011, 07:16:33 PM
The problem, as I see it, is this. There is only so much land on this earth. As well, only so much of it is open land that can be farmed. This is not something that is open for negotiation, it just is.
We can only add so many hormones and other chemical boosts to the seeds we plant and the animals we raise for food.
At some point, either a global law of population control is going to have to be put in place or they are going to have to invent those food replicator things. As I don't see food replicators being a prime goal, people are going to have to stop popping out kids.
We can't make more land and no matter how well you farm it, everything has a limit of production.
My comment from a different thread, but I still think the same here. However, I will take it a step further, one child per female. If you say per couple then you are going to have to decide how to deal with those who are married 4 or 5 times. What then? That is 5 different couples and 5 different kids.....
A food replicator would be the final nail in the coffin. Overpopulation is not just an issue of food.
That was part of my response in a different thread about food sortages. I agree it is not just an issue of food. I fully believe we will have to limit the number of children sooner than later. I also think it should be per female and once said child is born then sterilization should be automatic.
Otherwise this planet is fucked!
Good luck flying that one in Catholic or Muslim nations.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 14, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation.
Hasn't worked so far. Central Africa is RIDDLED with HIV/AIDS, famine, AND warfare...and their population is mushrooming.
Because we have the fucking PeaceCorps and Red Cross over there trying to fix things.
Or, you know, evolution could very well be breeding the next variation.
Sadly, MOST faiths have, somewhere in the fine print, "thou shalt breed faster than those heretics."
Now, if you could get the leaders of every faith out there to step forward and say, "God (or whoever) says knock it the fuck off, one per woman and you're DONE," and get people to BUY it, you might be on to something.
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 14, 2011, 06:42:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 14, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation.
Hasn't worked so far. Central Africa is RIDDLED with HIV/AIDS, famine, AND warfare...and their population is mushrooming.
Because we have the fucking PeaceCorp and Red Cross over there trying to fix things.
Or, you know, evolution could very well be breeding the next variation.
Like I said, you don't fix a famine by feeding people. You fix a famine by having the population drop to a sustainable level.
You want to know what's going to happen?
Natural. Fucking. Disasters.
Africa is a hot bed of seismic and tropical activity. If people can't control their own population and if disease isn't working, then, well, the only answer is to wipe them out in one fell swoop with a massive fucking cyclone or tsunami on the coasts, and the Rift Valley completely sinking into a giant fucking caldera.
Let's not forget this little guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:41:50 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 06:41:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 06:23:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 04, 2011, 07:16:33 PM
The problem, as I see it, is this. There is only so much land on this earth. As well, only so much of it is open land that can be farmed. This is not something that is open for negotiation, it just is.
We can only add so many hormones and other chemical boosts to the seeds we plant and the animals we raise for food.
At some point, either a global law of population control is going to have to be put in place or they are going to have to invent those food replicator things. As I don't see food replicators being a prime goal, people are going to have to stop popping out kids.
We can't make more land and no matter how well you farm it, everything has a limit of production.
My comment from a different thread, but I still think the same here. However, I will take it a step further, one child per female. If you say per couple then you are going to have to decide how to deal with those who are married 4 or 5 times. What then? That is 5 different couples and 5 different kids.....
A food replicator would be the final nail in the coffin. Overpopulation is not just an issue of food.
That was part of my response in a different thread about food sortages. I agree it is not just an issue of food. I fully believe we will have to limit the number of children sooner than later. I also think it should be per female and once said child is born then sterilization should be automatic.
Otherwise this planet is fucked!
Good luck flying that one in Catholic or Muslim nations.
Never said it would happen, but we all know what will if it doesn't. Where is god or allah when those people are starving? Maybe the feeding of people (who choose to overbreed because of religious beliefs) should be left to said religion's deity.
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 14, 2011, 06:46:34 PM
You want to know what's going to happen?
Natural. Fucking. Disasters.
Africa is a hot bed of seismic and tropical activity. If people can't control their own population and if disease isn't working, then, well, the only answer is to wipe them out in one fell swoop with a massive fucking cyclone or tsunami on the coasts, and the Rift Valley completely sinking into a giant fucking caldera.
Let's not forget this little guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
Sorry Suu. Human action will be required.
(http://i54.tinypic.com/25tawc4.gif)
It all has to do with oil.
Oil runs the tractors that harvest all the food to feed those people. The pesticides that protect the food are made from petrochemicals.
The plastics we make our medical equipment with, ect. ect.
Once oil runs out we will probably experience a cataclysmic drop in population(mostly from starvation), but after that things should be just peachy. Well, peachy for a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Humanity will rebuild and eventually repeat all the same mistakes again.
Lather rinse repeat into eternity.
And there is a very viable plan. All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.
It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:51:07 PM
And there is a very viable plan. All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.
It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work.
Mass sterilization? Protect selected breeders?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:51:07 PM
And there is a very viable plan. All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.
It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work.
Chemically sterilizing children via vaccines?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 14, 2011, 06:56:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:51:07 PM
And there is a very viable plan. All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.
It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work.
Chemically sterilizing children via vaccines?
I don't think we have 20 years.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:51:07 PM
And there is a very viable plan. All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.
It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work.
Mass sterilization? Protect selected breeders?
Tainted food exports. There are plenty of drugs that sterilize people. You'd need to get China and a few other exporters on board.
Two things:
1. When the shit hits the fan, and it will, the person responsible will go down in history as Hitler and Lucretia Borgia combined, and
2. When people realize they aren't capable of breeding, you will have a period of the mass insanity that passes through China every now and again.
So, the question is, is it worth it? It's an ugly moral choice.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:59:55 PM
So, the question is, is it worth it? It's an ugly moral choice.
Sometimes there IS no "moral" solution.
The good news is the ones still breeding WOULD be the ones growing their own food...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:59:55 PM
So, the question is, is it worth it? It's an ugly moral choice.
Is it less moral than allowing billions to starve? Personally, I don't think so.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 07:00:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:59:55 PM
So, the question is, is it worth it? It's an ugly moral choice.
Sometimes there IS no "moral" solution.
The good news is the ones still breeding WOULD be the ones growing their own food...
You're making an assumption, there.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:51:07 PM
And there is a very viable plan. All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.
It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work.
Mass sterilization? Protect selected breeders?
Tainted food exports. There are plenty of drugs that sterilize people. You'd need to get China and a few other exporters on board.
Two things:
1. When the shit hits the fan, and it will, the person responsible will go down in history as Hitler and Lucretia Borgia combined, and
2. When people realize they aren't capable of breeding, you will have a period of the mass insanity that passes through China every now and again.
We should have the capacity to add those chemicals into crops still in the ground. We have far worse things.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:02:18 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 07:00:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:59:55 PM
So, the question is, is it worth it? It's an ugly moral choice.
Sometimes there IS no "moral" solution.
The good news is the ones still breeding WOULD be the ones growing their own food...
You're making an assumption, there.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 07:03:44 PM
We should have the capacity to add those chemicals into crops still in the ground. We have far worse things.
Granted. What I get for serious discussions while I'm trying to work.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:51:07 PM
And there is a very viable plan. All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.
It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work.
At least Pol Pot was a proponent of organic fertilizer.
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 14, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation. Don't feed the fucking poor, don't give them shots to save their lives...let nature do it's work.
Except most famines in Africa are not caused by overpopulation at the present time. They're caused by leaders using food as weapons of war in their internal and external disputes.
Even the most famous famine of modern African history, the Ethiopian one which caused Bob Geldof to turn into a self-righteous prick, was caused by Marxist rebels who, after seizing power, went around killing farmers and confiscating their land while upping military spending. And then, when a bunch of insurgencies popped up, they started razing farms and putting villagers in concentration camps. Almost every major famine in sub-Saharan Africa has a political origin.
Amartya Sen's research backs this up in the case of the Indian subcontinent as well. He found during the Bengal famine of 1943, there was plenty enough food to feed the population as a whole...but stockpiling by wealthier sectors of society, acquisition by British troops and price-gouging led to mass starvation.
That's not to say famines in the future wont be caused by an absolute lack of food, only that as things stand now there isn't even anything near an optimal level of food distribution which would offset current population growth.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on February 14, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation. Don't feed the fucking poor, don't give them shots to save their lives...let nature do it's work.
Except most famines in Africa are not caused by overpopulation at the present time. They're caused by leaders using food as weapons of war in their internal and external disputes.
Even the most famous famine of modern African history, the Ethiopian one which caused Bob Geldof to turn into a self-righteous prick, was caused by Marxist rebels who, after seizing power, went around killing farmers and confiscating their land while upping military spending. And then, when a bunch of insurgencies popped up, they started razing farms and putting villagers in concentration camps. Almost every major famine in sub-Saharan Africa has a political origin.
Amartya Sen's research backs this up in the case of the Indian subcontinent as well. He found during the Bengal famine of 1943, there was plenty enough food to feed the population as a whole...but stockpiling by wealthier sectors of society, acquisition by British troops and price-gouging led to mass starvation.
That's not to say famines in the future wont be caused by an absolute lack of food, only that as things stand now there isn't even anything near an optimal level of food distribution which would offset current population growth.
On top of this, trade deals brokered by international organizations run by mostly European and North American countries mean that most third world countries which do have the capacity to feed their own populations are coerced into trade arrangements whereby they have to sell most of their raw materials, such as grains and crops, in order to support their economies and then buy food from European and North American farmers.
Honestly, I'm not sure if this is something that requires a global solution. With the exception of the US, most of the world's population growth is happening in underdeveloped countries. In many developed countries, the only reason that the population isn't falling is because people are migrating there. Half of the world's population increase is going to happen in 9 countries. (India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States, Ethiopia, and China.)
Fertility rates fluctuate over time, but right now they are dropping.
We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.
Social solutions are part of it too - some countries are designing programs to make it easier and more socially acceptable to use contraception and get abortions. This would go a long way to stave off the fertility rate in Africa.
Map of countries and territories by fertility rate
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png/800px-Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png)
Human population growth rate in percent, with the variables of births, deaths, immigration, and emigration - 2006
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Population_growth_rate_world.PNG/800px-Population_growth_rate_world.PNG)
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:17:02 PM
We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.
This seems more like a "It would be nice if..." statement than what seems more plausible.
Resources other than food and water are also finite. Are you seriously proposing we can continue to breed like river rats with no repercussion?
That aside, the UN and Royal Society both do keep a close eye on population growth and projected trends.
For example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12338901
QuoteThe world population growth rate must slow down significantly to avoid reaching unsustainable levels, says a new UN report.
To have a reasonable chance of stabilising world population, fertility must drop to below "replacement level".
It must then be maintained at that level for an extended period, says the report.
This replacement level is the fertility level at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next.
The world population is already poised to reach 7 billion later this year and this figure potentially could double to 14 billion by 2100 if action is not taken.
This is of particular concern for the least developed countries worldwide, which are growing at the fastest rate and are already the most vulnerable to famine.
The UN Population Division have produced six projections of potential future population change based on different changes to fertility level and other factors.
In the medium scenario, world population peaks at 9.4 billion in 2070 and then starts to decline.
However for this to happen, fertility needs to decline significantly in most developing countries.
No guarantee
In recent years, there has been widespread acceptance of the medium scenario as almost a certainty.
However Hania Zlotnik, the Director of the UN Population Division says there is "no guarantee that this scenario will become a reality because high-fertility countries may not reduce their fertility fast enough and countries with intermediate fertility levels may see them stagnate above replacement level".
"Even countries with intermediate fertility need to reduce it to replacement level or below if they wish to avert continuous population increases to unsustainable levels."
Now for a while I accepted the medium scenario as the most likely because, well, it was. Now, however, with economic growth slowing down entirely, we are probably going to see sociological shifts back to the kind of demographic growth that was being seen 20-30 years ago because, hey, no-one's going to have any goddamn jobs anymore, so having children to support you in your old age is the only viable strategy for living past 55. At the moment it is too soon to say for sure, one way or another, and I'd much prefer the medium scenario to take place, but right now things are not looking too rosy for it.
The earth is one sickening sociology experiment in the end.
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 14, 2011, 07:22:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:17:02 PM
We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.
This seems more like a "It would be nice if..." statement than what seems more plausible.
sorry, I'll try to focus harder on the ways in which we are hopelessly and inescapably fucked :p
On the up side...
People always talk about how it's the "end of the world." People are going to starve humanity to death, shit it to death, drown in our own garbage, nuke ourselves to oblivion, pick your apocalypse. Whatever.
You know what?
The earth is, unless we manage to drop enough nukes to shift it out of orbit and send it spiraling into the sun, gonna be just fine. Probably better off without us than with us.
Leave it to the cockroaches. They'll screw it up in their own way in their own time, but, who knows, they might do a better job than we have.
My mom has been saying for years that humans are just some sick twisted experiment between every god ever manifested by human belief. Higher being or not, someone, somewhere, is laughing at us, even if it's Martians.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:17:02 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure if this is something that requires a global solution. With the exception of the US, most of the world's population growth is happening in underdeveloped countries. In many developed countries, the only reason that the population isn't falling is because people are migrating there. Half of the world's population increase is going to happen in 9 countries. (India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States, Ethiopia, and China.)
Fertility rates fluctuate over time, but right now they are dropping.
Problem is, we're still over the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet. Cain is correct that most food issues at present are political in nature, but there's no denying that most of our food generating methods are destructive as hell to our arable land (google "ocean dead spots" and look where they are with relation to America, for example...They're all at the output of our rivers).
Then drop waste management, heat, shelter, deforestation, etc into the mix, and we're sitting on a time bomb. We are adding a net 288,000 people per day, at present. Even if fertility rates drop significantly, we're still fucked.
Quote from: Luna on February 14, 2011, 07:33:17 PM
On the up side...
People always talk about how it's the "end of the world." People are going to starve humanity to death, shit it to death, drown in our own garbage, nuke ourselves to oblivion, pick your apocalypse. Whatever.
You know what?
The earth is, unless we manage to drop enough nukes to shift it out of orbit and send it spiraling into the sun, gonna be just fine. Probably better off without us than with us.
Leave it to the cockroaches. They'll screw it up in their own way in their own time, but, who knows, they might do a better job than we have.
I am not interested in the future of a ball of rock or cockroaches. I am only concerned with the future of human beings.
I am really hoping that I'm becoming a bit too pessimistic and Malthusian, but you know what they say, "hope in one hand, and shit in the other, and observe which one fills up fastest".
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:30:43 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 14, 2011, 07:22:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:17:02 PM
We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.
This seems more like a "It would be nice if..." statement than what seems more plausible.
sorry, I'll try to focus harder on the ways in which we are hopelessly and inescapably fucked :p
If it was hopeless, I wouldn't have brought it up.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:17:02 PM
We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology.
The "best guesses" I've seen show a
sustainable1 carrying capacity of about 2 billion with present technology.
1 Not using this in the hippie/marketing sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:17:02 PM
We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology.
The "best guesses" I've seen show a sustainable1 carrying capacity of about 2 billion with present technology.
1 Not using this in the hippie/marketing sense.
Joel Cohen, a professor specializing in population issues at Columbia University estimates roughly 5 billion based on the need for 3500 calories a day and the amount of fresh water such a population would need versus the amount actually available.
Naturally, of course, such estimates are open to interpretation, and new sources of food or water (desalinization, if they can ever get it to work properly, for example) can massively impact on that number.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 07:17:02 PM
We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology.
The "best guesses" I've seen show a sustainable1 carrying capacity of about 2 billion with present technology.
1 Not using this in the hippie/marketing sense.
Joel Cohen, a professor specializing in population issues at Columbia University estimates roughly 5 billion based on the need for 3500 calories a day and the amount of fresh water such a population would need versus the amount actually available.
Naturally, of course, such estimates are open to interpretation, and new sources of food or water (desalinization, if they can ever get it to work properly, for example) can massively impact on that number.
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's accept that figure.
We're 2 Bn over it and climbing. Add in the innovations Cram has described (vertical farming, etc), and you simply make the problem worse (as Cohen points out, water is an issue. So is cooking fuel, heating, etc) by allowing an even higher population for a period of time...And by Cohen's estimate - the most optimistic I've seen - we're already living on borrowed time.
Food is too much of a necessity for political stability for it not to be utilized as a weapon by those who have a vested interest
in destabilizing economies for exploitation. Africa is plenty rich enough in natural resources to sustain it's people, it's largely because of the West's policy of making famine stricken countries dependent on Aid that it's so ravaged by Wars. Refugee Populations are shifting across Africa like locusts, because they never get to stay anywhere long enough to Farm effectively.
Carrying capacity is a really debatable point. There is a lot of disagreement about where it is. Here's a good chunk from the UN's world population report:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf
I'm snipping out a lot, but there's a lot of interesting talk about carrying capacity around p44
Carrying capacity and limits to growth
Most efforts at forecasting trends in population growth, agricultural production or economic growth, along with aspects of the environmental impact of the latter trends, extend in range from several years to 25 or sometimes 50 years into the future. Such periods are much shorter than the timescales of concern to ecologists. Yet beyond the near- or medium-term future, most experts in areas such as agriculture or economics believe that unforeseeable future technological and social changes are likely to play such a major role that attempting longer-term predictions becomes a futile exercise.
...
Despite the inherent problems in doing so, many attempts have been made to estimate the number of people that Earth can support. Joel Cohen (1995) compiled and presented all
the numerical estimates he could find of Earth's human carrying capacity. The earliest estimate, by Anton von Leeuwenhoek, dated from 1679; he estimated that Earth
could support 13.4 billion people. Most estimates of carrying capacity are based on an assumption that human populations are constrained by a limiting factor, or sometimes a combination
of potential limiting factors considered jointly. The most commonly assumed limiting factor is the amount of food that can be grown. In addition, Cohen noted that "almost all of the
definitions recognized that ecological concepts of carrying capacity must be extended to allow for the role of technology in enhancing nature's productivity. Most recognized that culturally
and individually variable standards of living, including standards of environmental quality, set limits on population size well before the physical requirements for sheer subsistence" (Cohen, 1995, p. 232).
The estimates of Earth's carrying capacity range from under 1 billion to more than 1,000 billion persons. Not only is there an enormous range of values, but there is no tendency
of the values to converge over time; indeed, the estimates made since 1950 exhibit greater variability than those made earlier (figure IV.1). This is worth noting, as it might be expected that, with the improvement in knowledge of Earth's biological and physical systems, there should be an approach to a consensus regarding Earth's carrying capacity. Yet this is not the case. Cohen concludes that, "notwithstanding their cloak of quantification, many of the published estimates of human carrying capacity are probably less dispassionate analyses than they are political instruments, intended to influence actions one way or another" (Cohen, 1995, p. 233). At the same time, it is worth noting that the world's population has already entered into the zone where many of the carrying capacity estimates are found. Around two thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion persons, and the median value is about 10 billion, or near the size that will be attained by 2200, according the Population Division's medium-variant scenario (United Nations Population Division, 2000b).
(http://i.imgur.com/iz09J.jpg)
Cram, that is in fact the exact same guy I was citing.
The rosier estimates are based on unknown technology.
This is akin to the "globalists" saying that off-shoring jobs is okay because manufacturing is obsolete, and someone will come up with another way to generate wealth. Eventually.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2011, 08:01:29 PM
Cram, that is in fact the exact same guy I was citing.
yeah I was in mid-post when you posted
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:03:40 PM
The rosier estimates are based on unknown technology.
This is akin to the "globalists" saying that off-shoring jobs is okay because manufacturing is obsolete, and someone will come up with another way to generate wealth. Eventually.
I think it's more unreasonable to assume that we're not going to come up with any solutions in the next 50 years.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:06:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:03:40 PM
The rosier estimates are based on unknown technology.
This is akin to the "globalists" saying that off-shoring jobs is okay because manufacturing is obsolete, and someone will come up with another way to generate wealth. Eventually.
I think it's more unreasonable to assume that we're not going to come up with any solutions in the next 50 years.
Convince me it's reasonable to assume we'll develop and impliment that technology in 20 years, and you'll have a convert.
Carrying capacity is affected by technology, which is unpredictable. We can agree there, right?
For example, the earth's carrying capacity was increased by the Green Revolution, which measurably increased global crop yields.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:15:16 PM
Carrying capacity is affected by technology, which is unpredictable. We can agree there, right?
For example, the earth's carrying capacity was increased by the Green Revolution, which measurably increased global crop yields.
So just keep breeding and don't worry about it. Technology will bail us out.
*sigh*
yeah cause I was totally saying there is no problem and we should just relax :roll:
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:23:38 PM
yeah cause I was totally saying there is no problem and we should just relax :roll:
Sounded like it to me. Just saying.
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Never mind.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Leaving this thread now, not doing #2.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Leaving this thread now, not doing #2.
:cry:
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Leaving this thread now, not doing #2.
:cry:
Well, fuck it, you know? You present a complex, difficult problem, and people either pretend there is no problem, or jam words in my fucking mouth. Either it's TOTALLY OKAY or ABANDON SHIP, IT'S TOTALLY FUCKED. There is no middle ground.
Oh, well, I should have seen this coming. I guess I'll jump on board. There is no problem, keep pumping those kids out, and we'll find some way to feed more people, until we're shoulder-to-fucking-shoulder in a toxic desert.
To hell with it. I'm going back to writing about nice, simple things that don't actually upset people.
Because we wouldn't want that, in this best of all possible world.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Leaving this thread now, not doing #2.
:cry:
Well, fuck it, you know? You present a complex, difficult problem, and people either pretend there is no problem, or jam words in my fucking mouth. Either it's TOTALLY OKAY or ABANDON SHIP, IT'S TOTALLY FUCKED. There is no middle ground.
Oh, well, I should have seen this coming. I guess I'll jump on board. There is no problem, keep pumping those kids out, and we'll find some way to feed more people, until we're shoulder-to-fucking-shoulder in a toxic desert.
To hell with it. I'm going back to writing about nice, simple things that don't actually upset people.
Because we wouldn't want that, in this best of all possible world.
We both know the solution that is obviously going to be used is the mass genocide/starvation/sterilisation of billions of people. I'm sure they'll find a way that it doesn't sound like that's what they are doing, and how hands were tied.
Quote from: Faust on February 14, 2011, 10:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Leaving this thread now, not doing #2.
:cry:
Well, fuck it, you know? You present a complex, difficult problem, and people either pretend there is no problem, or jam words in my fucking mouth. Either it's TOTALLY OKAY or ABANDON SHIP, IT'S TOTALLY FUCKED. There is no middle ground.
Oh, well, I should have seen this coming. I guess I'll jump on board. There is no problem, keep pumping those kids out, and we'll find some way to feed more people, until we're shoulder-to-fucking-shoulder in a toxic desert.
To hell with it. I'm going back to writing about nice, simple things that don't actually upset people.
Because we wouldn't want that, in this best of all possible world.
We both know the solution that is obviously going to be used is the mass genocide/starvation/sterilisation of billions of people. I'm sure they'll find a way that it doesn't sound like that's what they are doing, and how hands were tied.
Sure. So there's no need to try to think of anything else. Either we'll all become monsters or victims of monsters, or we'll try to continue to feed more and more people instead of finding a way to reach a sustainable population.
In any case, I don't give a shit. As I say, I'm going back to writing things that don't ask these sorts of questions.
again, I don't know where people are getting the implication that I'm saying there's no problem and everything's totally okay. We disagree about certain parts of the problem. To summarize:
-Carrying capacity is a muddy point. You won't find a lot of agreement amongst scientists about what the earth's carrying capacity really is. Furthermore, estimates about carrying capacity tend to diverge over time. Technology is very unpredictable, and therefore one of the factors that makes it difficult to pin down a carrying capacity.
-Earlier, I named a few technologies which could increase carrying capacity (vert.farming and better desalinization), and referenced the Green Revolution, which is an example of how we've used tech in the last 60 years to measurably increasing carrying capacity.
Nowhere did I say "Everything's fine, just keep pumping kids out", those are words that charlie put in my mouth.
I was under the preconception that this was a rant, and furthermore a complex problem - so we're supposed to be dissecting it and talking about it, not just fanning the OP with agreement and praise. I'm sorry we didn't arrive at the same conclusion about the nature of the problem or the possible solutions. Maybe I shouldn't have posted at all then? Either way, you're not encouraging actual discussion by saying "I guess I just wont' ask these questions anymore!"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Leaving this thread now, not doing #2.
:cry:
Well, fuck it, you know? You present a complex, difficult problem, and people either pretend there is no problem, or jam words in my fucking mouth. Either it's TOTALLY OKAY or ABANDON SHIP, IT'S TOTALLY FUCKED. There is no middle ground.
Oh, well, I should have seen this coming. I guess I'll jump on board. There is no problem, keep pumping those kids out, and we'll find some way to feed more people, until we're shoulder-to-fucking-shoulder in a toxic desert.
To hell with it. I'm going back to writing about nice, simple things that don't actually upset people.
Because we wouldn't want that, in this best of all possible world.
Fuck. I just need to stay out of threads I guess.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: Faust on February 14, 2011, 10:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 14, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
Alright, I get it now. This thread is only about how we're hopelessly fucked. I'll try to be more pessimistic.
Leaving this thread now, not doing #2.
:cry:
Well, fuck it, you know? You present a complex, difficult problem, and people either pretend there is no problem, or jam words in my fucking mouth. Either it's TOTALLY OKAY or ABANDON SHIP, IT'S TOTALLY FUCKED. There is no middle ground.
Oh, well, I should have seen this coming. I guess I'll jump on board. There is no problem, keep pumping those kids out, and we'll find some way to feed more people, until we're shoulder-to-fucking-shoulder in a toxic desert.
To hell with it. I'm going back to writing about nice, simple things that don't actually upset people.
Because we wouldn't want that, in this best of all possible world.
We both know the solution that is obviously going to be used is the mass genocide/starvation/sterilisation of billions of people. I'm sure they'll find a way that it doesn't sound like that's what they are doing, and how hands were tied.
Sure. So there's no need to try to think of anything else. Either we'll all become monsters or victims of monsters, or we'll try to continue to feed more and more people instead of finding a way to reach a sustainable population.
In any case, I don't give a shit. As I say, I'm going back to writing things that don't ask these sorts of questions.
The questions need to be asked, if we are going to be made accomplices to murder we at least deserve it to be damn clear why.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 10:08:01 PM
Either way, you're not encouraging actual discussion by saying "I guess I just wont' ask these questions anymore!"
Nor are we encouraging discussion by putting words in each others' mouths.
I'm done with it. Not because I'm pissed at any one person, but because nobody - except Cain - seems to want to do anything more than trumpet their opinions past each other. Obviously, I'm including myself in this, and I really don't want any more to do with that sort of thing.
And if the conversation can't happen HERE, it sure as fuck ain't gonna happen with a planet-load of monkeys, so it's fucking pointless. Let the monkeys breed themselves into oblivion. Where I sit, I'll get to cheer a bunch of them off the planet before the problem gets around to killing me.
To hell with it.
Quote from: Faust on February 14, 2011, 10:11:50 PM
The questions need to be asked, if we are going to be made accomplices to murder we at least deserve it to be damn clear why.
Fuck 'em.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on February 14, 2011, 10:11:50 PM
The questions need to be asked, if we are going to be made accomplices to murder we at least deserve it to be damn clear why.
Fuck 'em.
There is of course an alternative solution; annihilation of the first world countries by the first world countries, leaving the developing countries,
It leaves them blameless at least.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 10:08:01 PM
-Carrying capacity is a muddy point. You won't find a lot of agreement amongst scientists about what the earth's carrying capacity really is. Furthermore, estimates about carrying capacity tend to diverge over time. Technology is very unpredictable, and therefore one of the factors that makes it difficult to pin down a carrying capacity.
Whatever the carrying capacity of the planet actually is, it's clearly finite. The only thing that's going to change with technology is how long it takes before we are forced to implement a Final Solution.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on February 14, 2011, 11:04:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2011, 10:08:01 PM
-Carrying capacity is a muddy point. You won't find a lot of agreement amongst scientists about what the earth's carrying capacity really is. Furthermore, estimates about carrying capacity tend to diverge over time. Technology is very unpredictable, and therefore one of the factors that makes it difficult to pin down a carrying capacity.
Whatever the carrying capacity of the planet actually is, it's clearly finite. The only thing that's going to change with technology is how long it takes before we are forced to implement a Final Solution.
Well thats not entirely true. Theoretically we could keep going with the kicking the can down the road as long as we can acting under the assumption something ELSE will kill us first.
I realize it's hard to drop the whole pessimism vs. optimism thing, but if we can look past the idealistic technological agriculture utopia and the ravening hordes of starving mouths, we might be able to actually talk about this.
Carrying capacity is an iffy number dependent on practices, that's a given. It is, however, a number that will need to be faced. The question isn't what the number is - the question is how to deal with the problem of the number existing in the first place. It's 2 billion or it's 22 billion, whatever, it's still a question of what to do upon the number becoming a problem. So we're soon to be waist deep in, well, waste - how do we prevent that at its core, which is an issue of overpopulation? (I see Cataplanga addressed this while I was typing)
There isn't any easy answer for a population reduction. I'm all for the one child per female thing but it's not enforceable, and if it was I would trust NO HUMAN BEING in the world to actually do it responsibly. It gets too much into eugenics. It, as Roger suggested, would have to be done covertly. My problem is that this, again, targets specific populations. Yes, these are the ones that are growing out of control but it seems a drastically ugly way to do it.
As for who would do it, living down as one of history's most notorious evil fucks? Eh, I personally could live with it. You're a demon for 50-100 years, then you're still considered bad but your name just gets used as a punch line in whatever equivalent there is to the Internet in the 22nd century.
I wonder what effect education would have in reducing reproduction rates. If the whole issue could be addressed in a feasibly humane way.
QuoteAnd if the conversation can't happen HERE, it sure as fuck ain't gonna happen with a planet-load of monkeys, so it's fucking pointless.
Conversation can and should happen here but, lets be honest, it's conversation for conversations sake (value thereof not to be underestimated)
It sure as fuck aint going to happen with a planet full of monkeys, we're agreed there but it doesn't need to. The monkeys are governed by a system of plausible deniability, buck passing and straightforward, head in the sand cognitive dissonance. This system operates with an efficiency that borders on autonomy. It would almost work if no monkeys were ever there to grease the wheels. Even though the monkeys are the ones who made it happen it's grown beyond their control.
This system will apply the final solution over and over again until it achieves it's objective which, paradoxically, isn't actually written down anywhere or even conceptualised. There is no plan. It just wants to move, to carry out shit, to accomplish. It doesn't have the slightest idea what.
Roger,
of the two possibilities, i understand that you are in favor of the Horrible Population Control path, rather than blithely ending it all, correct?
so what then about the logistics?
you say sterilization is a likely culprit through tainted foods. i can roll with that hypothetical....
who do you believe (if anybody) has concrete plans to enact this if deemed necessary? (im assuming that you don't believe that it is currently taking place, i guess)
who do you think might be likeliest to be selected as the next lucky contestant on Most Extreme Elimination Challenge?
Do you believe it is likely enough that you are making survivalist type plans? (or encouraging your kids to?)
also, if some extremely powerful group that could pull off sterilizing the human race into sustainability for benevolent reasons exists, then wouldn't it be preferable to first try to scare the shit out of humanity by a false doom that would compel it to take the necessary self correction? (stop breeding a positive growth rate)
and use the time bought to focus our efforts on what seems the rosiest way to avoid the whole problem, a new frontier? (i.e. get off this rock, partially)
We prefer the term "Optimal Conclusion" these days. "Final solution"
has all kinds of negative connotations. And due to the level of selective culling that will be necessary by then, any fresh, positive slant we can dress it up in is going to be appreciated. (By the survivors, at least)
This Brave New World we need to create shouldn't have to be burdened with the guilt of having to decimate our own species. We could call them "The Givers", or something reverential like that, maybe have a day of remembrance for them. And Monuments. Lest we forget.
Sterilisation wont need to be secret or through food, at least not at first. It will be offered to small income families and will come with money, food stamps, who knows. China gives them a radio if they only have one kid.
Extend this logically and you can have people who pay less or no tax if they volunteer for government sterilisation.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 14, 2011, 11:16:04 PM
Roger,
of the two possibilities, i understand that you are in favor of the Horrible Population Control path, rather than blithely ending it all, correct?
so what then about the logistics?
Nope. Made my mind up. The monkeys can all choke on their own sewage and fucking croak.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 11:53:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 14, 2011, 11:16:04 PM
Roger,
of the two possibilities, i understand that you are in favor of the Horrible Population Control path, rather than blithely ending it all, correct?
so what then about the logistics?
Nope. Made my mind up. The monkeys can all choke on their own sewage and fucking croak.
They won't all die at the same time. Some would survive and make the same mistakes all over again.
^ That would be my theory. Monkeys are nothing if not resilient. Some will survive and breed and in a millennia or two, it'll be the same ol' thing all over again.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on February 15, 2011, 12:21:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 11:53:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 14, 2011, 11:16:04 PM
Roger,
of the two possibilities, i understand that you are in favor of the Horrible Population Control path, rather than blithely ending it all, correct?
so what then about the logistics?
Nope. Made my mind up. The monkeys can all choke on their own sewage and fucking croak.
They won't all die at the same time. Some would survive and make the same mistakes all over again.
Good for them.
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
OMG. I can totally see this. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
WIN
'Specially since we don't write shit down on rocks anymore. How much of our knowledge and history will survive 10,000 years from now, if we haven't gone extinct?
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
WIN
'Specially since we don't write shit down on rocks anymore. How much of our knowledge and history will survive 10,000 years from now, if we haven't gone extinct?
I wonder if people were saying that before the last ice age?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 01:04:37 AM
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
WIN
'Specially since we don't write shit down on rocks anymore. How much of our knowledge and history will survive 10,000 years from now, if we haven't gone extinct?
I wonder if people were saying that before the last ice age?
Ha! Well, whether or not they did, we've still one-upped them.
Long after our magnetic and optical information storage has degraded past recovery, the people of 12,000 AD will still be dealing with loads of our toxic leftovers.
After all, if the people of the future won't use their time travel technology to fix our problems now (and therefore their own, even if it fucks up their history), screw 'em. Taking a leaf out of your book with that attitude.
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:19:30 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 01:04:37 AM
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
WIN
'Specially since we don't write shit down on rocks anymore. How much of our knowledge and history will survive 10,000 years from now, if we haven't gone extinct?
I wonder if people were saying that before the last ice age?
Ha! Well, whether or not they did, we've still one-upped them.
Long after our magnetic and optical information storage has degraded past recovery, the people of 12,000 AD will still be dealing with loads of our toxic leftovers.
After all, if the people of the future won't use their time travel technology to fix our problems now (and therefore their own, even if it fucks up their history), screw 'em. Taking a leaf out of your book with that attitude.
Maybe. The last word I've heard is that 50,000 years after we're gone, all but one or two traces of us will be gone, too.
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
WIN
'Specially since we don't write shit down on rocks anymore. How much of our knowledge and history will survive 10,000 years from now, if we haven't gone extinct?
There's a few projects to write shit down on metal plates that will supposedly last 10,000 years. Last I checked they were busy writing down copies of dying and dead languages, instead of trying to warn our decedents of how we fucked up though. This, the nuclear waste, and the bizarre deformed bones of people who weighed 400 pounds will be the only traces left by then.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 15, 2011, 02:46:17 AM
There's a few projects to write shit down on metal plates that will supposedly last 10,000 years. Last I checked they were busy writing down copies of dying and dead languages, instead of trying to warn our decedents of how we fucked up though.
You know, we had a case here in Tucson, of a guy who killed someone who tried to mug him while he was getting ready to jump off an overpass.
Yeah, he killed someone in self-defense, while preparing to commit suicide.
Your story and the story I just conveyed explain why monkeys rule the planet. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 01:23:36 AM
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:19:30 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 01:04:37 AM
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
WIN
'Specially since we don't write shit down on rocks anymore. How much of our knowledge and history will survive 10,000 years from now, if we haven't gone extinct?
I wonder if people were saying that before the last ice age?
Ha! Well, whether or not they did, we've still one-upped them.
Long after our magnetic and optical information storage has degraded past recovery, the people of 12,000 AD will still be dealing with loads of our toxic leftovers.
After all, if the people of the future won't use their time travel technology to fix our problems now (and therefore their own, even if it fucks up their history), screw 'em. Taking a leaf out of your book with that attitude.
Maybe. The last word I've heard is that 50,000 years after we're gone, all but one or two traces of us will be gone, too.
Copper statues. Radio signals. Anything else? Nuclear waste maybe.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 15, 2011, 06:15:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 01:23:36 AM
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:19:30 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 01:04:37 AM
Quote from: Cainad on February 15, 2011, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2011, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 15, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
That's probably what happened with our ancestors.
In a few dozen thousand years, they'll assume that the ice age we brought on was natural, and that the "warming trend" they're experiencing is all bullshit.
:lulz:
This cheers me up to no end.
WIN
'Specially since we don't write shit down on rocks anymore. How much of our knowledge and history will survive 10,000 years from now, if we haven't gone extinct?
I wonder if people were saying that before the last ice age?
Ha! Well, whether or not they did, we've still one-upped them.
Long after our magnetic and optical information storage has degraded past recovery, the people of 12,000 AD will still be dealing with loads of our toxic leftovers.
After all, if the people of the future won't use their time travel technology to fix our problems now (and therefore their own, even if it fucks up their history), screw 'em. Taking a leaf out of your book with that attitude.
Maybe. The last word I've heard is that 50,000 years after we're gone, all but one or two traces of us will be gone, too.
Copper statues. Radio signals. Anything else? Nuclear waste maybe.
Keanu Reeves.
I like to think 21,000 years ago, at least one of our ancestors was saying "goddamn, why does it have to be so fucking hot all the time? I could really go for a white Christmas, and some mammoth burgers".
And then he was stoned to death once the giant ice sheets started crushing everything in their path.
Incidentally, in the last two books I've been reading, both on totally different subjects, Milkantovich cycles have come up. I'm not sure if this is even that relevant to the thread, but they sure are interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Has anyone brought up the (admittedly implausible) idea of going off-planet? You could even worst-case scenario it, and make it into Blade Runner or Total Recall -- but you would still be spreading the population around rather than killing it.
Not that I know of, though I did think that as well. Of course, there are as many problems with that as it could solve, such as the energy and labour intense nature of support such colonies would need over the long term, the legal status of such colonies etc etc and as far as we know, those ice deposits on the Moon and Mars are nonreplaceable, and so a very limited resource over the long term. Of course, terraforming may be able to eventually bring about a climate where such fresh water stores become replenishible, but if we master the science of that, I think the need for offworld colonies would also be significantly lessened.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 15, 2011, 12:51:56 PM
Has anyone brought up the (admittedly implausible) idea of going off-planet? You could even worst-case scenario it, and make it into Blade Runner or Total Recall -- but you would still be spreading the population around rather than killing it.
The sheer distances involved would mean we'd have to evolve a prescient Guild of Spice abusing spacers, and find a shitload of Melange. (Or it's Terran equivalent) But I'd be up for
any experimentation. Also, I had a weird dream a couple of years ago, about escaping the Earth, but the most memorable thing about it, was that we could breath perfectly well out there, and the "Cold, empty vacuum" model of Space was a lie, told by the Governments to discourage people from going up there. And for all I know, you really
can breath in space.
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2011, 01:10:34 PM
Not that I know of, though I did think that as well. Of course, there are as many problems with that as it could solve, such as the energy and labour intense nature of support such colonies would need over the long term, the legal status of such colonies etc etc and as far as we know, those ice deposits on the Moon and Mars are nonreplaceable, and so a very limited resource over the long term. Of course, terraforming may be able to eventually bring about a climate where such fresh water stores become replenishible, but if we master the science of that, I think the need for offworld colonies would also be significantly lessened.
It's estimated that there are about 600 million tons of water at the lunar north pole, in sheets a couple of meters thick. So let's take an over-estimate of water usage based on what we currently use - about 100 gallons per day per person. This would be much less when you take recycling and water-conservation methods into account. But anyway, at that given rate you've got about half a million person-years of water available.
Given that half the difficulty of the Apollo missions was getting people back to Earth - dumping supplies and materials on the moon would be a lot easier than that. If there existed the political will, we could have a sustainable, or near-sustainable moonbase within a decade - we've solved most of the major technical challenges with the existing space stations.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 15, 2011, 12:51:56 PM
Has anyone brought up the (admittedly implausible) idea of going off-planet?
I was going to say something about this, but I didn't want to draw any attention to myself in hostile thread.
And it's only implausible right now, if people could get their heads out of their asses for a second, we could be colonizing space in a "reasonable" amount of time.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 15, 2011, 04:13:29 PM
I was going to say something about this, but I didn't want to draw any attention to myself in hostile thread.
Argh, it's too late... Remington noooooo!
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/remdimo.gif)
I don't see that as totally improbable. After all, we were all brought up on a steady diet of Star Trek, and Science Fiction. Where else are we going to go? Ever since Man first looked up and saw the stars, it has been his ambition to go there. And the other day, I was thinking, there are people alive today, who were born in a time when the only way to get off the ground, was in a hot air balloon.
They were alive when the Wright Brothers made that first flight, and when the earliest Powered Planes, made of paper, were taking their first confident flights, each going further, higher, and for longer than the last. Shortly after that, along comes the Helicopter, Jet engines, and supersonic flight. Air Travel for everyone is a reality. Then Sputnik, Telstar, Laika the Dog, Satellites, and manned Orbits. Then the crowning moment of man setting foot on the moon. The. Fucking. Moon.
All in the lifetime of one rather elderly, but still breathing, Man.
So no, hostile thread or not, I don't see why colonization of Space should be an impossibility. In fact, at the rate our technology is expanding, I'd be surprised if we didn't get to the Asteroid belt, in the next 20 years. And you know what? It wouldn't surprise me if there had already been a manned flight to Mars. On the quiet, maybe, but it's not beyond present technology at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGyeULvpQdY&feature=related
And if they have been to Mars, don't forget, Hawkwind were the first to
tell us. :eek:
Even if we pull of world colonization off, and millions of people leave for a successful mars colony (or just strip mine the asteroid belt, easier really), that still leaves billions of people in Earth.
We have fucked everything up. By we, I mean the human race. By everything, well I meant everything.
We are a world of denial. A world of procrastination. A world of passing the buck. The problem is, while we can deny, put off or pass the blame all we want, the problems are still running rampant around us. Choosing to ignore or avoid something amazingly does not make it go away.
We elect people who make empty promises to fix things that have been broken thru a decade of elections. We fight wars no one can win, we let our peers dictate our decision making process. We stand on the curb and watch the movement walk past.
So what, you ask, is the answer? Well the solution is for people to step up to the plate and get shit done. Demand that the governments find a way to balance their budgets. To make environmentally acceptable alternatives for everyday fuel usage. Something that is either self sustaining or at least rechargeable. To limit offspring before we have more mouths than food. To get control of the population booms in the third world countries and get control of population growth. Or, and as terrible as it sounds, natural selection is natural selection, let people die. Space or sea colonization might be a temporary fix, but it won't last, we'll just muck that up as well.
Unfortunately this would require the majority of the world population to make that demand and that is never going to happen.
We can come up with all the cures we want, there is only one simple problem. People are not going to do shit.
I simply told my children not to bother to procreate. Much easier to be the end of a line than know you have great great grandchildren watching the fucking world collapse.
Fuck that, if I can't be here to kick this fucker in the shins on its way down, I want to make goddamn sure that at least some of my DNA gets that opportunity.
I can't rob others of the liberties I already took. I'm just categorically against it. I have no dominion on them after I have already given the earth 2 humans to cohabitate with. I try hard not to presuppose *I* of all people know what's best for everyone, and I refuse to allow the same to my progeny as well.
I don't deny this isn't an extreme problem, and I don't deny that we are breeching a point past we can't return in resources, technology and implementataion. I am bouyed by the fact this is even talked about, however, and being researched, cared about and general knowledge for the taking now that we have the ability to LEARN such knowledge (for whatever good it does for us in the end of things).
I have no trite answers, I have no conclusions. I just know what I CANNOT and WILL NOT propose, because I know that even if we, the powers that be, shift our concerns onto the backs of an unsuspecting people of the future, that does not guarantee that SOMETHING ELSE equally cancerous and uncontrollable without Herculean and ultimate annihilating effort to quash or control won't materialize as a result.
I thought this was the most poignant and important bit of the entire thread:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 05:33:40 PMThere's only one meme worth repeating right now, and that is "Zero Population Growth".
Too bad about all the bickering, and the "I'm gonna stop posting in this thread ... oh, I mean, until you leave the thread" which was not necessary. Cause the discussion about carrying capacity was useful and relevant. Or if not, not worth getting all monkey about.
Anyway, that bit.
Zero Population Growth.Funny cause when I was younger I was all for the Church of Euthanasia and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (google). It was in fact PD that made me reconsider what they preached, even if I didn't take it 100% seriously (but still 99%).
I was an early member in the CoE, oddly enough. I was big into dada at the time, and I thought Kris Korda was hysterical. Then he got waaaaay too serious, and I had to cut loose.
People that know better are sticking their heads in the sand on this one.
TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US!
\
:joshua:
/
MALTHUS WAS WRONG!
:lulz:
Hilarious though.
Check out the responses to this comic:
http://9gag.com/gag/79004/
ETA: I agree with Cram that technology adds unpredictability in accurately gauging when the shit is going to hit the fan, but it's a completely different thing to say it's not a problem or, my favorite, that Malthus' simple observation is somehow irrelevant thanks to technology. It's a simple truth that we obviously should be taking very seriously before it's too late—especially since it's not at all clear when that is.
But from a monkey-observation point of view this is incredibly entertaining.
Malthus *is* wrong, we already broke the trends he observed (which had been keeping the population more or less in check).
That's kinda the problem, we upped the food production so much that population can grow unchecked, but only until we strain the ecosystem past the breaking point, or run out of oil without coming up with a way to replace the things we use it for first, then instead of having not quite enough 99.9% of the population either starves to death or gets killed by somebody who suspects that they have a couple cans of food hidden in the basement.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 20, 2011, 05:03:04 AM
Malthus *is* wrong, we already broke the trends he observed (which had been keeping the population more or less in check).
That's kinda the problem, we upped the food production so much that population can grow unchecked, but only until we strain the ecosystem past the breaking point, or run out of oil without coming up with a way to replace the things we use it for first, then instead of having not quite enough 99.9% of the population either starves to death or gets killed by somebody who suspects that they have a couple cans of food hidden in the basement.
:lulz:
IT'S A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF
FOOD AND LAND LULZ!
*eyerolls* way to address my points there.